She is just the soundbyte de jour in my opinion. The council is getting their support all riled up to look like they are so desparate for action. The Minnesota PD is not heavily corrupt or such, most likely poorly trained and poorly led and do need reforms. I think the Council will eventually wake up and either start looking at Camden/Compton to guide their rhetoric or when CNN goes away they will suddenly start changing their tune and talk of reform and collaberation. Watch what happens when the news cycle dies out next week on this issue....
Exactly. You can't fit all that needs changing on a protest sign, it doesn't play well for a 3 minute talking head segment, and mostly it offers no red meat for the mob. The changes needed are extensive, will take time and more cooperation than a political agenda is now driving. A start would be a revamp of the public school system. We might want to just get back to basics rather than pushing social movements. We can accept that this current generation of blacks would be better suited for vocational training than college. What good is vocational training without job opportunities? Damn good question. Perhaps instead of paying lip service to rebuilding our infrastructure these political hacks can actually start making it happen. Millions of good paying jobs will be created, and the projects will last for years and years. Sadly this is unlikely because BLM is a political movement and political movements are meant to be continued, never solved.
https://www.theosthinktank.co.uk/in...at-it-is-what-it-isnt-and-why-you-should-know 4. What about the harsh punishments for crimes? Shari’a, as we’ve seen, covers a vast range of human behaviour beyond issues we in the West would identify as ‘law’. But it’s the area of criminal law that naturally sparks the most controversy among non–Muslims. Fiqh distinguishes between crimes that violate the ‘rights of humans’, and those that violate the ‘rights of God’. The latter are a special category of crimes referred to as the ‘hudud’, meaning ‘limit’ or ‘boundary’. These include adultery / fornication; falsely accusing someone of fornication; consuming intoxicants; some types of theft; and armed robbery or banditry.[7] The punishments for hudud crimes, as set out in the Qur’an and Sunnah, are extremely severe. If we take the punishments for adultery or fornication (zina) as an example, the Qur’an says that those who engage in it must be lashed 100 times. Hadiths add that if the person involved is single and hasn’t been married, then they should also be exiled for a year; and that married men and women guilty of adultery should be punished by stoning to death. Such scriptural punishments for these acts (and indeed, in some cases even the very condemnation of them) horrify people today. However, there are several important conditions that mitigate the severity of these punishments: · In the case of violations of the rights of God, an adult Muslim who commits one of these crimes is only theoretically liable for the hudud punishment if s/he is of sound mind and intentionally engages in the act despite being aware that it is prohibited. · As well as setting out harsh punishments, the Qur’an and Sunnah demand an extremely high standard of proof before such punishments can be carried out. For example, in the case of adultery, the Qur’an says that there must be four reliable witnesses to the act, and anyone who accuses someone of adultery without those witnesses should themselves be punished with 80 lashes for slander. · Some scholars, like Jonathan A.C. Brown, have argued that the early Muslim judges went to great lengths to avoid implementing the hudud punishments, by finding ambiguities in the cases at hand which would mean that the guilt of the accused couldn’t be guaranteed. This principle followed various hadith of the Prophet Muhammad and his Companions, including one in which he is said to have stated “Ward off the hudud from the Muslims as much as you all can, and if you find a way out for the person, then let them go. For it is better for the authority to err in mercy than to err in punishment.”[8] So in the case of adultery, for example, many jurists held that if someone who had confessed to the act subsequently retracted their confession, they could no longer face the hudud punishment. And many argued that a woman’s pregnancy was not sufficient evidence that adultery had occurred; for example, where a woman’s husband had been absent for a long time, jurists claimed (rather improbably) that her pregnancy may have originated with her husband years previously, but had lain dormant until now.[9] Altogether, then, it seems that the hudud were intended to be harsh enough to ward Muslims off from committing the crimes, but with standards of proof high enough so that the stated punishments were rarely carried out. In Jonathan Brown’s view, the central principle in the application of the hudud punishments was “maximising mercy”.[10] In reality, however, that didn’t mean that people accused of such crimes got off scot–free. It just meant they may not have been subjected to the particularly harsh Qur’anic and hadith punishments. They may have faced other punishments handed down by the judges, who could use their discretion to hand down punishments in line with the circumstances of the case at hand. Depending on the crime, those punishments could still have been severe.[11] The caveats and nuances to the application of the hudud punishments won’t change many minds in Britain today about them. But arguably discussion of these issues is beside the point – because there’s very little evidence that British Muslims actually want to see such punishments to be implemented in this country. Many consider these rules to have been designed for a specific historical context and that they are inapplicable for the very different modern world. And many look at the harsh punishments meted out in countries like Saudi Arabia with disgust, arguing that while such regimes may claim to be implementing ‘shari’a’, in fact they are deviating from the goals of the shari’a and failing to uphold people’s rights. In recent years there have been a number of surveys of British Muslim attitudes. These tend to show that British Muslims overwhelmingly feel a strong sense of belonging to Britain. But regarding Muslim attitudes to Islamic law, the polling questions are often very poorly worded and sensationalist, so we learn very little about their actual views, including on the specific issue of the introduction of the hudud punishments.[12] For example, in a 2010 poll 17% of Muslim respondents said they preferred to “Introduce Sharia law, that is traditional Islamic law, in all cases”; 19% chose the option to “Introduce Sharia law, but only if penalties do not contravene British law”; 20% said they didn’t want “sharia law” introduced; and 37% said they didn’t know. Such a high proportion of ‘Don’t Know’ responses is significant. It may indicate anything from respondents feeling the question was too simplistic to answer adequately, to having given the topic little thought, to being confused or conflicted about the issue. But we know nothing from this about what the respondents actually understood “Sharia law” to involve, and nothing about their views on the hudud. Six years later another poll asked British Muslims to what extent would they support or oppose there being particular aspects of law, “perhaps related to civil law cases such as financial disputes, divorce or other family matters but which could also cover other aspects” in which “Sharia law is introduced instead of British law?” 43% supported the statement, 22% opposed, 23% said ‘neither’ and 12% didn’t know. This poll was worded more carefully than the one in 2010, but it’s still too vague to tell us clearly what Muslims think about criminal law in Islam.[13] Since ‘shari’a’ is such a broad term with multiple meanings, when Muslims say in a survey that they ‘support shari’a’ they could mean a number of different things. No doubt some will be thinking of the re–establishment of laws that promote socially conservative values. But others may mean specific changes to English family law, such as the legal recognition of Islamic religious marriage, which would be no bad thing (see below). Others may simply mean the establishment of a government which is just and protects its citizens’ rights. Still others, including less religious Muslims, may not have anything in particular in mind when saying they ‘support shari’a’, beyond a vague feeling of loyalty to a concept they know is important to their religion and community.
Believe me, if I thought my tweets could influence Trump even in the slightest manner, I would. I assume you have lots of tweets to Trump and other politicians with your sage advice? I wouldn't mind seeing some. #whiner
I don't mind tweeting President Donald Trump on his twitter account. If there is a problem and you can be part of the solution, why not give it a go? Have in fact tweeted him multiple times. In the trade war with China and the tariffs, I have tweeted multiple times and I do not claim credit for what he has done but, considering we all want what is best for the US for the sake of our children and grandchildren, it does not hurt to throw ideas out there. Have suggested he raise tariffs on Chinese products when the Chinese were slow walking the negotiations on the fair trade deal. I think he listens more than people think. Tens of millions of Americans see those tweets and you can in fact spark a conversation over any topic on twitter. So, on the Democrats grand plan to defund the police, the question is are the Democrats going to give up their armed bodyguards and secret service protections since, they feel secure without the police? Even extreme liberal Democrat Socialist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is now walking back that position of defunding the police. Once, they saw the huge public backlash, these Democrat idiots are walking it back and doing a 180 degree on their defunding the police positions.